segregation, eh? The collateral damage caused to men by discriminating against all of them at once in order to protect women from the ones who are socially abusive is unnecessary. Instead of "women only space" make a "no being oppressive through actions" space. Yeah it would be harder to enforce, much like how people are harder to categorize when we stop dehumanizing them.

I think Tat is putting up some basic stuff here. Maybe he knows more than this, maybe he doesn't. Perhaps if we could collectively leave the Feminism 101 class for MRAs behind, then Tat might expound further.

There are plenty of trans and trans-inclusive feminists who are also against porn and believe the same things Tat has been espousing. Therefore

And I tell you what - if he turns out to be a trans-critical person, I'll be the first to pipe up. He does not currently appear to be a trans-critical person, however, and there is no point in pre-emptively shouting over something there has been no indication he believes.

And if he does turn out to be a TERF, then I'll continue having discussions on the forums regardless. And then I could display what I think is the proper way to interact with a comic which displays values that I disagree entirely with._________________[Stripeypants has enabled lurk mode.]

segregation, eh? The collateral damage caused to men by discriminating against all of them at once in order to protect women from the ones who are socially abusive is unnecessary. Instead of "women only space" make a "no being oppressive through actions" space. Yeah it would be harder to enforce, much like how people are harder to categorize when we stop dehumanizing them.

I still vote for not dehumanizing.

I'd like to know what this alleged "collateral damage" is, since just calling it "dehumanization" is not particularly illuminating._________________

mouse wrote:

almost a shame to waste dennis' talent on him.
except it's always a pleasure to see a good dennis insult.

segregation, eh? The collateral damage caused to men by discriminating against all of them at once in order to protect women from the ones who are socially abusive is unnecessary. Instead of "women only space" make a "no being oppressive through actions" space. Yeah it would be harder to enforce, much like how people are harder to categorize when we stop dehumanizing them.

One of the reasons Women's Only institutions have become necessary is also societal indoctrination, again as stated by others men might need a place to escape a specific situation, but in most cases won't feel threatened by all women in society at large. I say most as there are exceptions to every rule.

Women however have been told over and over since their earliest memories that all men are the same, all men want only 'one thing', which is a so broad a generalization as to be very unfair. But sadly not entirely untrue with how we've all been raised with certain gender discrimination outlooks as being 'normal'. But it's one of the reasons that women feel the need for a place to themselves, because if they feel personally threatened by one man, it translates in most cases to feeling that way about ALL men as they've been told their whole lives that ALL MEN are the same. Whether Pervert, Policeman or Priest, etc, it's been reinforced that they're looking at women like pieces of meat, less than human sex objects and if given the chance will take advantage of you.

Now obviously this is not universally true, but with how dangerous the exceptions to the rules can be and how society is still prone to victim blaming.

So in closing Men Only places can exist for the right reasons and do good for those that need them, no one is saying they are inherently bad only the ones with a clear misogynist or racist agenda are the issue.

But Women Only places NEED to exist until society does a better job of protecting them in general so they don't need to be told from the moment they can talk that men are a threat to them. WE need to do a better job, realizing how we make them feel threatened and stop doing it.

segregation, eh? The collateral damage caused to men by discriminating against all of them at once in order to protect women from the ones who are socially abusive is unnecessary. Instead of "women only space" make a "no being oppressive through actions" space. Yeah it would be harder to enforce, much like how people are harder to categorize when we stop dehumanizing them.

I still vote for not dehumanizing.

I vote for you just fucking off.

You vote for everyone who says something you don't like to "fuck off".
Kinda says a lot about your intellectual capacity when that's your only reply.

I personally think all these "Sex X or Y only " places ( apart from bathrooms, i guess ) are pretty sexist themselves.

segregation, eh? The collateral damage caused to men by discriminating against all of them at once in order to protect women from the ones who are socially abusive is unnecessary. Instead of "women only space" make a "no being oppressive through actions" space. Yeah it would be harder to enforce, much like how people are harder to categorize when we stop dehumanizing them.

I still vote for not dehumanizing.

That is so helpful of you to say. You're right. Instead of creating safe spaces, we should just stop abuse. It's so easy, why hasn't anyone thought of it before?

Now can you - as I assume, a man - exposing to me the damage I have suffered - as a man - due to women only spaces? I have been aware of women only spaces for a long time and I have never, ever felt remotely damaged, left out or suffering.

If a woman's only space makes you feel discriminated against, it's because you're a narcissist._________________Once, at a local NOW meeting where I was the only male among about a dozen women, a feminism trivia contest was held. I came in third.

segregation, eh? The collateral damage caused to men by discriminating against all of them at once in order to protect women from the ones who are socially abusive is unnecessary. Instead of "women only space" make a "no being oppressive through actions" space. Yeah it would be harder to enforce, much like how people are harder to categorize when we stop dehumanizing them.

I still vote for not dehumanizing.

I vote for you just fucking off.

You vote for everyone who says something you don't like to "fuck off".
Kinda says a lot about your intellectual capacity when that's your only reply.

I personally think all these "Sex X or Y only " places ( apart from bathrooms, i guess ) are pretty sexist themselves.

Yeah, you're a real hero friend, you're really knocking sexism on its arse._________________Once, at a local NOW meeting where I was the only male among about a dozen women, a feminism trivia contest was held. I came in third.

segregation, eh? The collateral damage caused to men by discriminating against all of them at once in order to protect women from the ones who are socially abusive is unnecessary. Instead of "women only space" make a "no being oppressive through actions" space. Yeah it would be harder to enforce, much like how people are harder to categorize when we stop dehumanizing them.

I still vote for not dehumanizing.

I vote for you just fucking off.

You vote for everyone who says something you don't like to "fuck off".
Kinda says a lot about your intellectual capacity when that's your only reply.

I personally think all these "Sex X or Y only " places ( apart from bathrooms, i guess ) are pretty sexist themselves.

Most of you haven't earned the right to engage me in an actual discussion yet. Ya'll are just annoying internet noise.

Whoa, whoa, whoa... gender segregated bathrooms aren't sexist? crayven, you surprise me, and for once it's not in an eye-rolling, "you sound like my racist grandpa" kind of way._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

Safe spaces for women hurt man feels. I don't care if it makes it materially more difficult to actually keep traumatized and battered women safe while they're at their absolute most hurt and vulnerable, I'd rather you just don't hurt the man feels.

I may have paraphrased just a teensy bit. But Monkey had the right approach to response here. Fuck you.

I agree in societies where women are constantly harassed/groped/etc on public transport, creating women-only public transport makes sense, but that wasn't the part of their post I was strongly objecting to.

Perhaps it wasn't what they meant, but what they said was "On the other hand, can you really think of a man-only space created in order to protect men from violence from women, or from the threat of potential violence?" They don't really mention public spaces in that question. They simply point out the seeming sillyness of a man-only space to protect *men* from violence from women.

Perhaps that wasn't what they mean, and perhaps I was reading too much into it, but... I can't really know what they meant, only what they said, which is why I responded as I did.

The plural is fairly important here. Men do face domestic violence, and it's a problem that it's an under-recognized problem.

It is still specific individual men needing to get away from specific individual women, (or gay partners) and the need for men-only spaces in shelters, rather than mixed, is still not so much to protect the men from other women who might harass them, as it is to keep women in similar circumstances from feeling threatened by the men. It's a safe space for a man who is in an abusive situation, but it is still not for the sake of protecting men from women. Not at all the same way, and the needs are not equivalent.

A long time ago I was in a relationship with a physically abusive woman. Didn't do anything about it because of social gender roles and yadda. Anyway, after a bit of time in that relationship I used to attempt to shield myself with my arms whenever ANY woman moved quickly around me. Wasn't a conscious move, but a automatic reaction. My female friends were constantly saying "Sheesh, I'm not going to hit you or anything." Just throwing that out there. Abused men may not NEED to be protected from all women in those shelters, but the may need the comfort that safety from women would provide in the environment.

Not really disagreeing with anything in particular, just saying there is more to the mindset of someone who has been abused than you may think._________________My deviantArt - Blog-ity blog

Safe spaces for women hurt man feels. I don't care if it makes it materially more difficult to actually keep traumatized and battered women safe while they're at their absolute most hurt and vulnerable, I'd rather you just don't hurt the man feels.

I may have paraphrased just a teensy bit. But Monkey had the right approach to response here. Fuck you.

Can I ask what your criteria is to determine whether to engage with what I said or to just swear at me? Was the issue me not making my point with a respectful enough tone, or is what I said, regardless of how it is presented, so obviously wrong that any and all name calling and written abuse are justified?

I am not committed to disallowing women's only spaces. I think the value they bring in terms of both providing actual safety for women and providing a place that *feels* safe is huge. I dont think mentioning possible downsides and suggesting we should discuss the downsides while acknowledging that we need to ensure women both are and feel safe is the kind of perspective that warrants a playground bully level response. If its my fault for not making my postition clear, fine, im sorry. But I really want to talk about this stuff with you guys; im learning here, and I dont know who swearing at me benefits._________________Don`t give up.